English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Drydown periods that follow precipitation events provide anopportunity to assess controls on soil evaporation on a continental scale. Weuse SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) observations and Noah simulationsfrom drydown periods to quantify the role of soil moisture, potentialevaporation, vegetation cover, and soil texture on soil drying rates. Ratesare determined using finite differences over intervals of 1 to 3 days. In theNoah model, the drying rates are a good approximation of direct soilevaporation rates, and our work suggests that SMAP-observed drying is alsopredominantly affected by direct soil evaporation. Data cover the domain ofthe North American Land Data Assimilation System Phase 2 and span the first1.8 years of SMAP's operation. Drying of surface soil moisture observed by SMAP is faster than thatsimulated by Noah. SMAP drying is fastest when surface soil moisture levelsare high, potential evaporation is high, and when vegetation cover is low.Soil texture plays a minor role in SMAP drying rates. Noah simulations showsimilar responses to soil moisture and potential evaporation, but vegetationhas a minimal effect and soil texture has a much larger effect compared toSMAP. When drying rates are normalized by potential evaporation, SMAPobservations and Noah simulations both show that increases in vegetationcover lead to decreases in evaporative efficiency from the surface soil.However, the magnitude of this effect simulated by Noah is much weaker thanthat determined from SMAP observations.

Controls on surface soil drying rates observed by SMAP and simulated by the Noah land surface model